That said, let me temper that with some skepticism. First, having got a book deal[1] she is now in the position of directly financially benefiting from media promotion, which in my opinion puts her in a slightly different category than a purely objective scientist.
Second, while she is careful that her words are always defensible and rooted in science, my interpretation of her (prolific) memes is that hell yeah, she thinks it's a lab leak. I want to emphasize that this is my interpretation; at worst, she can be accused of communicating ambiguously enough to create this interpretation in a cross-section of her audience. And a large fraction of her replies are people who are, shall we say, less scientifically careful.
Third, she has truncated quotes from her detractors in a way that changes their meaning, and I find this not entirely good faith. Here's the thread[2] that has that quote and Dr. Rasmussen's response. Perhaps this is an honest difference in interpretation, and Dr. Rasmussen is being too thin-skinned about it.
In any case, my goal here is to present evidence which I think might be relevant, and encourage people to look at it and decide for themselves. As I say, while for the reasons I cited above, I certainly wouldn't consider everything Dr. Chan says to be gospel and accept it uncritically, I absolutely agree that hers is a voice that should be heard. Much to her credit, she has been consistently calling for a real investigation for a long time, well before it was newly fashionable.